Intel/AMD/HBM2 Combo CPU

This is Intel's angle: It's *much* smaller than any other existing solution.

"Smaller" for me has a fixed maximum size - whatever the maximum size is of a box that can be attached to a monitor's VESA mount.

If it goes beyond that, might as well just go ITX where you can swap out the GPU.

I can see this new product having a cooler that dictates a case the size of a NUC with a 2.5" HDD bay, but without the HDD bay. Instead, it'll all be cooling.

Zotac has been dabling in this all-in-one form factor with discrete GPU boards that have custom cooling solutions for a while. Yeah, they're as tall as a 12oz soda can, but for a slightly larger chassis you can have whatever GPU you want.

Not saying this isn't interesting, but given Intel's NUC pricing you're going to be paying a premium for something if it's NUC-sized.

P.S. They're called scare quotes. They're used to indicate a word is being used in a non-standard sense, hence "smaller".

If knew what you were attributing something to someone that was false, the solution isn't to put quotation marks around it, pretend it is right, and then eventually acknowledge that it is wrong after a few more posts. The solution is to fix in the first place. Just as a general rule of thumb, try not to say things you know aren't true, even if you want to. It is really annoying, and it will seem dishonest to other people.

With reference to the bolded text, I will repeat myself: Stop arguing and read the damn thread.

Is there a reason you think I haven't been? So far all you seem to say is "read the thread".

Quote:

If knew what you were attributing something to someone that was false,

False? I said "smaller". Hat says Intel's angle is that it's much smaller than any other existing solution.

What TR pictured and what Intel have shown is a condensed product, effectively cutting a Vega 56 in half and letting an Intel CPU ride shotgun on the PCB. The picture of the ITX board that TR provided shows a ton of power components surrounding the CPU - the same sort of power components that surround a Vega+HBM package:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/rad ... 202-3.html

The elephant in the room is the cooling solution. Sure, you can get rid of GDDR chips and gain a bunch of unused PCB space, but that doesn't get rid of the physical size of the cooling solution. If it did, AMD would have shipped Nano-sized Vegas as standard.

I personally don't think Intel will want to ship a too-hobbled setup. To repeat, my guess is that there will be no room for a 2.5" HDD in a modern day respin of a Brix gaming system. It'll be mostly heatsink and fan, but it'll be at least as large as the 2.5" HDD NUC designs available today.

Quote:

Just as a general rule of thumb, try not to say things you know aren't true, even if you want to.

There's nothing untrue about pointing out the thermal realities of grafting an AMD GPU, HBM2, and an Intel CPU together on a package. Only you seem to believe that the package TDP will be 45w.

So in your view, Intel has built this thing, is claiming that it will reduce Z-height and overall system size, but has no idea what they're talking about and is in fact wrong?

I believe for laptops, this will result in products the size of the Razer Blade. So yay, OEMs get on Razer's level, and then Razer goes smaller if they use this part. If this part is far lower performing than a GTX 1060, then I see it trying to carve out an eSports niche which seems... odd? Maybe they ran the numbers and figured they could go after the Overwatch/LoL/DOTA2/Warframe crowd?

For a NUC? I think we're seeing a testbed that won't ever go into an actual product. If it does, it'll probably throttle just like Skull Canyon or an acoustically-constrained Brix does, given the track record for such products.

Intel knowing what they're talking about? You saw the Skylake-X and Xeon launches, correct? You've seen the scarcity of Coffee Lake parts in the retail channel, correct? Intel seems a bit frazzled at the moment.

This has always been a strange design to me. People have been saying: "Intel with Vega Inside", but that really isn't remotely true.

The Intel CPU isn't even using Intel EMIB, so the benefit of having the CPU on the same board package as the HBM/GPU (actually using EMIB) seems limite to merely mechanical one of making one big package for a single cooler. Which seems to be a debatable benefit.

It's also fun to see Intel touting AMD GPU features:

Edit: Updated post with Anand story and Official deck images that allow hotlink.

Could be a decent chip for a Mac Mini or high-end NUC. But that was speculated on almost 2 months ago in this thread, so that's nothing new. Plus the thinner NUC would need a cooling upgrade, although the taller ones could take advantage of the extra space in the chassis (remove 2.5" support, put in a bigger heatsink/fan)...

The Intel CPU isn't even using Intel EMIB, so the benefit of having the CPU on the same board package as the HBM/GPU (actually using EMIB) seems limite to merely mechanical one of making one big package for a single cooler. Which seems to be a debatable benefit.

You're underestimating how much power the high-speed PHYs needed to drive signals across a motherboard draw. Putting things on the same package (where you can design the drivers to only have to deal with a fixed, short interconnect) saves a lot of power. Relatively speaking, anyway.

This has always been a strange design to me. People have been saying: "Intel with Vega Inside", but that really isn't remotely true.

The Intel CPU isn't even using Intel EMIB, so the benefit of having the CPU on the same board package as the HBM/GPU (actually using EMIB) seems limite to merely mechanical one of making one big package for a single cooler. Which seems to be a debatable benefit.

It's pretty clear that Apple is the one asking for this and that it will be of limited utility to anyone else, but at the same time... it's a first step. Next one uses EMIB for the CPU/GPU interconnect and saves some energy. Baby steps - this was a rush job, after all.

Also: Intel sold EMIB as being a cheaper, easier-to-manufacture alternative to a big interposer. AMD is now using it with HBM2. Does this mean that we might get some better HBM2 yields with future Vegas?

The Intel CPU isn't even using Intel EMIB, so the benefit of having the CPU on the same board package as the HBM/GPU (actually using EMIB) seems limite to merely mechanical one of making one big package for a single cooler. Which seems to be a debatable benefit.

You're underestimating how much power the high-speed PHYs needed to drive signals across a motherboard draw. Putting things on the same package (where you can design the drivers to only have to deal with a fixed, short interconnect) saves a lot of power. Relatively speaking, anyway.

I think you are overestimating. I think the product that makes sense is the standalone part of the GPU with HBM, that you can pair with any CPU using standard PCI, which won't be that far away on tiny laptop motherboard especially give the board savings from using HBM. Which is exactly what AMD is going to be selling: